Tips for Regular, Fast Blog Posts – Personalizing the Informational Blog

Blogs are not one size fits all, and while there are blogs that are very personal in nature, there are others (like this one) that are more informative in nature.  Many law blogs wear the informational hat, for example.
Which doesn’t mean that they can’t bring a personal touch to their informational blog, although most of these bloggers don’t want to start writing posts about their football team’s latest victory or where they are taking the kids on vacation this summer. 
Here are some tips on how to infuse an informational blog with some of your individual personality (which readers do like to see):
1.  Books.
Post regularly on books you have read and recommend to others.  Easy to do, the fastest way to do this is just insert the image of the book with a link to Amazon or BN or Powells or whatever and title the post “I Recommend This Book” or “Recommended: [insert title']”. 
2.  Photos.
Post photos regularly, with a short caption beneath them. Choose pix that you have taken, or grab something from the public domain. Images are great for informational blogs, both visually and from an SEO perspective (Google likes this).  Try tying the image to your blog’s theme or to related news. 
A public domain photo of Abe Lincoln on President’s Day, for example.  Another: your photo of the old historic building downtown right before it was torn down.  With that one, your title could simply be:  Acme Building, 1932-2012.  Something like that.
3. Quotes
Post quotes that you like on a routine basis.  There are sites that organize quotes, in case you cannot remember the exact wording.  These can be words of wisdom or they be related to your blog’s theme or set of topics.
The text of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech could be placed on your blog for MLK Day, for example. 
How often?
Not more than once a week, I would suggest.  However, having one of these quick posts on a weekly basis brings a two post a week blog to the three post a week blog, and that can be a big difference to readers and to the search engines. 

Recommended Read: “ETrouble” and 4 Things Companies Can Do About It

 

Great article in Corporate Counsel discussing the risks of social media these days.  Etrouble, they call it. 

I read it via Law.com: “From the Experts: Your Company Tweeting its Way into Trouble? Four Steps to Safely Engage in Social Media,” by Judah Lifschitz and Laura Fraher.

Now, this article is written from the perspective of the corporation and the risks of social media upon the company when Twitter, Facebook, etc. is used by employees, etc.

Worth your time to read, even if you read it as the lawyer for The Man pondering the impact of free speech among the little people. 

Employers do have a right to wonder what their exposure is legally when their employees do things like the Starbucks guy who tweeted about “…shoot[ing] everyone.” 

Good read.

More on Shield Laws: Will Congress Pass the Free Flow of Information Act – And Will This Hurt Bloggers?

 

More on bloggers and the extent to which legal protections provided to traditional journalists will be extended to them:  right now, there is a bill moving through the House of Representatives that seeks to extend establishing journalistic protections in the law to only those writers who write "for a substantial portion of [their] livelihood or for substantial financial gain."

This might cover some non-traditional journalists.  It’s not going to cover lots of other bloggers who are crusaders or whistleblowers or other bloggers who are collectively being labeled “citizen journalists.”

New Jersey has ruled that its shield law can cover these citizen journalists.  So has California. Will the federal shield law be deemed to be less welcoming to these activist bloggers?

From the bill’s summary description: 

Prohibits a federal entity (an entity or employee of the judicial or executive branch or an administrative agency of the federal government), in any matter arising under federal law, from compelling a covered person to testify or produce any document related to information obtained or created as part of engaging in journalism unless a court makes specified determinations by a preponderance of the evidence, including determinations that: (1) alternative sources have been exhausted; (2) the testimony or document sought is critical to the investigation, prosecution, or defense of a crime or the successful completion of a noncriminal matter; (3) disclosure of an information source's identity is necessary to prevent an act of terrorism, harm to national security, imminent death, significant bodily harm or to identify a person who has disclosed a trade secret, individually identifiable health information, or certain nonpublic personal information; and (4) the public interest in compelling disclosure of the information or document involved outweighs the public interest in gathering or disseminating news or information. Allows a court, in making the last of those determinations, to consider the extent of any harm to national security.

Defines "covered person" as a person who regularly gathers, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes information concerning matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or substantial financial gain, including a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such a person. Excludes from that definition foreign powers and their agents and certain terrorist organizations and individuals.

Requires the content of compelled testimony or documents to be limited and narrowly tailored.

Prohibits this Act from being construed as applying to civil defamation, slander, or libel claims or defenses under state law.

Exempts certain criminal or tortious conduct.

Applies this Act to communications service providers with regard to testimony or any record, information, or other communication that relates to a business transaction between such providers and covered persons. Sets forth notice requirements. Permits a court to delay notice to a covered person upon determining that such notice would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of a criminal investigation.

It’s entitled The Free Flow of Information Act of 2011.

You can track it here.

Can Bloggers Be Protected Like Traditional Journalists Via State Shield Laws? Recent Court Rulings Say No.

While we were all enjoying the holiday season from Thanksgiving to the New Year, another opinion came down regarding defamation suits against bloggers that bloggers everywhere may be interested in reading.  It's the third case of which I'm aware where state shield laws are used as a defense by bloggers sued by defamation: Oregon isn't as blogger-friendly as New Jersey or California.

Oregon Shield Law - No to Bloggers

The latest ruling is an opinion that came down from a federal trial judge presiding over a defamation case filed against an blogger up in Oregon, and it’s an opinion issued right before trial began against blogger Crystal Cox.

Read the Oregon federal judge’s ruling here.

In the Oregon case, U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez heard Cox’s argument that as an “investigative blogger” she was protected by the state’s shield law from revealing her sources to requests for their identity from plaintiff Obsidian Finance Group.  Cox’s claims had a confidential informant as the cornerstone of her claims which she published on her blog.

Judge Hernandez ruled against Cox.  His rationale?  Shield law is limited in its application to “traditional media” and blogging isn’t traditional media. 

Cox, he opined, had no traditional education in journalism.  She had no street creds from a “recognized news entity.” 

Result:  the crusading blogger risks a huge defamation judgment against her to the tune of $ 2.5 million.

New Jersey Shield Law - Maybe to Bloggers

If you’re following this stuff, this opinion may sound familiar.  There was a similar stance taken by the Supreme Court of New Jersey regarding their state’s shield law and online forum posts by another “investigative blogger.” 

Read the New Jersey Supreme Court opinion regarding bloggers and their state shield law here.
In the New Jersey case, Washington State resident Shellee Hale argued that she investigates and reports on corruption in the online adult entertainment industry, although admittedly she is not a traditional journalist (no journalism degree, no connection to a “recognized news entity”). 

Hale was sued by Too Much Media, LLC, a company that makes “adult entertainment” related software, for defamation and false light for comments about the company that she posted online in a forum.  Hale argued she was protected by the New Jersey Shield Law and lost - although the opinion was a victory for bloggers, overall.  (To read her posts as well as the lengthy opinion giving four bases for its decision, go to the opinion itself.)

The New Jersey Supreme Court’s rationale?  From the opinion:

New Jersey's Shield Law provides broad protection to the news media and is not limited to traditional news outlets like newspapers and magazines. But to ensure that the privilege does not apply to every self-appointed newsperson, the Legislature requires that other means of disseminating news be "similar" to traditional news sources to qualify for the law's coverage. We do not find that online message boards are similar to the types of news entities listed in the statute, and do not believe that the Legislature intended to provide an absolute privilege in defamation cases to people who post comments on message boards.

California Shield Law - Maybe to Bloggers

Meanwhile, the California courts have also ruled on the application of shield laws to the publications of bloggers.  In O'Grady v. Superior Court, a California appellate court ruled several years ago that its state shield law could encompass the work of non-traditional journalists, or citizen bloggers.

From O'Grady: 

We decline the implicit invitation to embroil ourselves in questions of what constitutes "legitimate journalis[m]." The shield law is intended to protect the gathering and dissemination of news, and that is what petitioners did here. We can think of no workable test or principle that would distinguish "legitimate" from "illegitimate" news. Any attempt by courts to draw such a distinction would imperil a fundamental purpose of the First Amendment, which is to identify the best, most important, and most valuable ideas not by any sociological or economic formula, rule of law, or process of government, but through the rough and tumble competition of the memetic marketplace.

Here’s something to think about:  if Cox had been interviewed on television, or by a “traditional journalist” for a  printed publication with an online presence that is a “recognized news entity” and told her tale – would her confidential source be protected by the shield law?  I think so.

Recommended Read for Bloggers: Blogger Behave by Laura Booz

I don’t recommend a lot of books about blogging – nor do I buy them for myself – because lots of them are all about so pushy with promises about how to make millions from blogging (usually in only minutes a day, wow!)

However, here’s one of those exceptions to the rule: a new book offered both in print and ebook by Laura Booz entitled Blogger Behave: Make your blog benefit your life so you can love both! 

You can read a short excerpt on Amazon if you’d like to investigate it. 

Suffice to say, it’s for bloggers everywhere (not just lawyers) and it is a friendly book that helps to spread one of my big messages:  blogging for hard sales shouldn’t be done by most of us, leave that to Ford Motor Company (and even they have a nice guy name Scott Monty to personalize their social media). 

Blogging should be fun for you and the reader.  Informative.  Worthwhile.  Worth your time and theirs.

If it’s not, then you need to not blog.